User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 12, 2013 18:51 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
In reply to: Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6. by raiph
Parent article: Chromatic: Goodnight, Parrot

I realize that denying Perl is dying is useless at this point.

Perl is not dying. Perl 6 is likely to be stillborn and even the Perl 6 developers take pains to say that Perl 6 is a different language from Perl (which everyone nowadays understands to mean Perl 5.)


(Log in to post comments)

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 1:23 UTC (Wed) by raiph (guest, #89283) [Link]

> Perl is not dying.

Right. If you notice the very next thing I said was "Perl is alive and kicking". I made the mistake of being sarcastic and, worse, forgot an appropriate emoticon.

> Perl 6 is likely to be stillborn and even the Perl 6 developers take pains to say that Perl 6 is a different language from Perl (which everyone nowadays understands to mean Perl 5.)

I've never heard a Perl 6 developer say that Perl 6 is a different language from Perl, just from Perl 5. In particular, Larry Wall has made it clear he reserves the right to the name "Perl".

Being stillborn is no longer one of the possible outcomes. It's most complete; it's in great shape technically; sixers are in great spirits; productivity reflects the good vibe; Larry Wall is writing his first Perl 6 book and is aiming to publish it about a year from now; there's still $100K in grant money set aside specifically for marketing and further funding of Perl 6 when it's ready for prime time; and so on. It might not be the future of Perl 5, but it is pretty much unstoppable at this point.

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 12:43 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

I've never heard a Perl 6 developer say that Perl 6 is a different language from Perl

It seems this point is still debated.

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 17:36 UTC (Wed) by raiph (guest, #89283) [Link]

The section you've linked notes that "some people" feel Perl 6 isn't Perl. I've heard some of these folk. None have been Perl 6 devs.

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 18:14 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

I won't post a long quote from here, but in essence it says:

The "commonly used Perl language" is also known as Perl 5.

"Perl 6 is different from Perl 5"

Which as a programmer, I read as Perl == Perl5 && Perl6 != Perl5 which implies Perl6 != Perl.

But maybe I'm being a bit pedantic. :)

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 19:10 UTC (Wed) by raiph (guest, #89283) [Link]

I have read the entire "What about Perl 6?" page and agree with all of it.

> The "commonly used Perl language" is also known as Perl 5.
> "Perl 6 is different from Perl 5"
> Which as a programmer, I read as Perl == Perl5 && Perl6 != Perl5 which implies Perl6 != Perl.

You missed out "commonly used". If you will it's CU Perl == Perl5 && Perl6 != Perl5 which implies Perl6 != CU Perl, which is true enough.

Perl6 is Perl, but it's not "the commonly used Perl".

> But maybe I'm being a bit pedantic. :)

Perhaps not pedantic enough. :)

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 19:30 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

:)

It depends on whether you interpret "the commonly-used Perl language" as "The Perl language, which is commonly used, ..." or "The commonly-used Perl language (as opposed to some not-commonly-used language also known as Perl)"

I think we can agree we are splitting hairs here, just as Perl 6 is splitting heirs wrt the Perl branding.

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 23:50 UTC (Wed) by raiph (guest, #89283) [Link]

"splitting heirs" :)

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 12:44 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

Being stillborn is no longer one of the possible outcomes.

How so? Do you consider Chandler not to be stillborn even though it was "completed"?

Should be: Goodnight, Perl 6.

Posted Feb 13, 2013 18:55 UTC (Wed) by raiph (guest, #89283) [Link]

Who wanted Chandler written enough to freely give time and money to do it? Primarily Mitch Kapor. Who thought they wanted to try it bad enough that they would ignore its problems? Almost no one. What happened when Mitch gave up and the product wasn't sufficiently high quality? It died.

Who wants Perl 6 to be written enough to freely give time and money to do it? Boatloads of people, including many Perl 5 heavy hitters. These folk are generally quiet but have made it clear (behind the scenes) that they are waiting till the time is right to get involved. For example Nicholas Clark began contributing (by testing) a few months ago.

Who thinks they want to use Perl 6 bad enough to put up with its problems? It's clear that millions of hackers are or would be open to it, including many Perl 5 users. These folk are generally quiet and just want whatever works. If Perl 6 meets their needs, they'll try it out. And it's clearly nearly there. As Larry recently said, the only big problem left is speed, and the prognosis for addressing that this year is excellent.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds